Hacienda Management, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Starwood Capital Group Global, I, LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Briefing re 22 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/30/2012. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13

HACIENDA MANAGEMENT, S. DE R.L. ) Case No. 12-0395 SC
DE C.V.,
)
) ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
) BRIEFING
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL I )
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

14
15

Plaintiff brings the instant action asserting various claims

16

sounding in tort.

17

the ground that Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata

18

because Plaintiff brought similar contract claims in earlier

19

arbitration proceedings.

20

specifically point to an arbitration award that was confirmed by

21

the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

22

("RJN") Ex. A ("NY Judgment").

23

ECF No. 1.

Defendants now move to dismiss on

ECF No. 22 ("MTD").

Defendants

See ECF No. 23-1

Both Plaintiff and Defendants contend that the Court must

24

apply California law to determine the res judicata effect of the

25

New York Judgment.

26

unclear that this is the correct approach.

27

suggests that the Court "must accept the [res judicata] rules

28

chosen by the State from which the [first] judgment is taken."

MTD at 10; ECF No. 26 ("Opp'n") at 3.

It is

Ninth Circuit case law

1

Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kremer

2

v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 482 (1982)).

3

it appears that New York law should apply to determine the

4

preclusive effect of the New York arbitration cited by Defendants.

5

In other words,

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit

determine the claim preclusive effect of the New York Judgment and

8

how that law bears on the outcome of the instant motion.

9

supplemental briefs shall be no longer than ten (10) pages and

10

United States District Court

supplemental briefing concerning what law the Court should apply to

7

For the Northern District of California

6

shall be filed with the Court within fourteen (14) days of this

11

Order.

The

Response briefs are neither required nor permitted.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated:

May 30, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2